Talk:Rectal examination

Merge discussion

• No merge. AP is more pop culture/vetinary. Would get lost in rectal exam.
• Merge - same thing - Jack (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• No merge - one is medical, one is pop culture RogueNinja_talk 00:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

?

The last paragraph makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.35 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

More on the process of inserting the finger up the anus

More should be included in the process from a pragmatic perspective, i.e. insert the finger superiorly, and then turn the finger around down inferiorly, and then try to touch the prostate, etc. 129.180.137.98 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge of Anal probing

In the spirit of being bold I have gone ahead and merged the contents of the "Anal probing" article into this one. My reasons were:

• Closely related topics - the topics are very closely related, but this article is both better referenced and more comprehensive. The relevant "anal probing" material comprises a few additions to the "Usage" and "Popular culture" sections and co-ordinates well with the existing material;
• Reader accessibility - it is more useful to a reader to have single and not very long article on the subject, than two very closely related but shorter articles.
• Article content - the article on anal probing was a single introductory sentence (now in the "Usage" section on this page) and then a laundry list of unsourced film and video references. Significant references have been transferred here as text rather than a list (list format being discouraged by WP:TRIVIA)

Oddly, I think there is scope of an "Rectal examinations in popular culture" article, given the frequency with which it appears as a comedic device. But this would require more than the indiscriminate list that the previous article was. It can also be easily created as a "Main Article" branching from this page's "Popular Culture" section.

So - my reasoning above. But other views welcome, as always. Euryalus (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Is sigmoidoscopy obslete?

In the article, it states:

"The DRE is inadequate as a screening tool for colorectal cancer because it examines less than 10% of the colorectal mucosa; sigmoidoscopy is preferred."

Colonoscopy should be the preferred method for colon cancer screening.Keelec (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Sigmoidscopy is the current standard for routine screening, due to the fact that the colonoscopy is more invasive, requires more intensive bowel cleaning, and comes with greater risks. 67.78.69.82 (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Duration of the exam

Prior to my edit, the article said the exam takes "approximately sixty seconds", with no citation. I have never seen a rectal exam take that long for any reason. Routine male rectal exams to check for BPH, prostate cancer, stool color, and occult blood usually take about 5 to 10 seconds for most doctors and most male patients. Female rectal exams can be even faster because they are usually just checking stool hardness, color, and occult blood. A rectal exam that discovers pathology can be slower, for instance if a lump is palpated in the prostate.

I will admit that this is basically original research, but the original statement was unsourced and was likely to scare patients unnecessarily. Many men who have just turned 40 or 50 are scared of a rectal exam, and it doesn't help to say it will last 60 seconds. This is already a patient group that tends to eschew routine medical care and screenings. Fluoborate (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC

Then the proper thing to do is to remove it, since it is unsourced material, While remembering that original research is also likewise prohibited. See WP:NOR67.78.69.82 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

efficacy

It appears that this test has recently fallen out of favor among medical professionals, at least in the US. This article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2013/11/11/great-news-for-guys-no-more-invasive-prostate-exams/#500dc8d778d5 says that the American Academy of Family Physicians' (AAFP) advice to physicians is "Don’t routinely screen for prostate cancer using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or digital rectal exam."

I don't see this reflected in the current article. Seems to me that this should be mentioned, although I'm not enough of an expert here to evaluate how widespread or mainstream this advice is. Whatever we say should be solidly researched and reflect the range of expert opinion. Thoughts? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there have been a few malpractice lawsuits where PSA failed to detect prostate cancer that a DRE likely would have. . The DRE remains the standard of care. 67.78.69.82 (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

DRE only?

The DRE is one type of rectal exam, yet its description takes up nearly the entire article. Anoscopy/proctoscopy/rectoscopy and other endoscopic methods (sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy) are also widely used but not covered beyond a passing mention. The title should be changed or the content should be expanded to reduce the undue emphasis. Although anoscopy does not visualize the whole rectum, it does visualize the most distal portion. And although sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy are primarily used to examine more proximal parts of the colon, rectal examination is a routine part of each of these procedures. Yes, the DRE is very common, and all men should have one at some point (recommended intervals might be a useful addition to this article), but all men and women over 50 should also have colonoscopies every 10 years or less. A rectal exam means more than the finger. Dcs002 (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Dcs002 This is because properly understood, the suffix -scopy technically makes it an imaging procedure, which are treated seperately in the literature. In the current literature the term "Rectal Exam" nearly always, if not always, specifically means a DRE. Wikipedia should differ to the specific usage of terminology as is considered acceptable in common use within the medical profession, as opposed to being overly pedantic, which makes articles more difficult to read and understand correctly. 67.78.69.82 (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

half

...of the refs now are pop culture sources. This might be a problem. Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 20:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Fingi in bottocks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.111.12 (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

French/Spanish/Catalan/Dutch articles not connected to the other translations

I needed to check the “rectal examination” article in french but did not found it, I thought a french version did not exist but it did when I looked up “toucher rectal” on french wikipedia. And there were other languages not linked to the english article as well. Please merge them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.233.21.41 (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)